HPD lieutenant found guilty at hearing

HACKENSACK - A Hackensack police lieutenant was found guilty Dec. 7 of administrative charges that stemmed from his alleged failure to report a credible terroristic threat made last year by a now retired Hackensack police sergeant against the president of the local police union. Lt. Vincent Riotto was also found guilty of charges regarding recordings he made of other police officers' conversations while on duty.

Since June 2009, 22 current and retired Hackensack police officers have filed lawsuits in federal and state court against Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa.

Riotto, who initially faced 66 administrative charges, was found guilty by retired Superior Court Judge James Murphy, the hearing officer in the matter. Murphy ruled that Riotto violated police rules and regulations involving misconduct, failure to report a known violation of the law, failure to perform duties and conduct subversive of good order and the discipline of the police department.

Riotto's administrative charges stemmed from a March 2009 incident in which Riotto heard and digitally recorded a conversation during which Sgt. Anthony Trezza allegedly stated that he would put a bullet in Police Officer Anthony Ferraioli's head and then in his own head if Ferraioli won the election for president of Policemen's Benevolent Association (PBA) Local 9. Ferraioli was elected to the post in October 2009.

Riotto's attorney, Patrick Toscano Jr., had asserted during the four sessions of the disciplinary hearing held last month that although his client had informed Ferraioli about the threat the same day that it was made, he did not report the threat immediately to his superiors, fearing retaliation from Police Chief Charles "Ken" Zisa because of the chief's close association with Trezza. Toscano also argued that Riotto was selectively targeted by superior officers, and that Riotto did not violate any rules and regulations when he made the recordings. Toscano also claimed that Riotto made the recordings to protect himself from retaliation by superior officers, including Zisa.

However, in his ruling, Murphy wrote that whatever his reasons, Riotto committed misconduct when he "failed to promptly investigate [Trezza's threat] and failed to immediately draft charges" and submit a complete investigative report to Chief Zisa.

Murphy also ruled that Riotto's reportedly surreptitious recordings of other police officers' conversations was conduct that would "promote a general atmosphere with suspicion and be detrimental and subversive of the good order and discipline" of the police department.

Riotto is among 22 current and retired Hackensack police officers, as well as one civilian, who have filed lawsuits since June 2009 in federal and state court against Zisa and other superior officers for numerous allegations, including civil rights violations. The lawsuits began to be filed after several police officers were suspended and administratively charged.

Zisa filed the administrative charges against Riotto last year, and Riotto has now been on paid suspension for the last 19 months.

Zisa was arrested and suspended from his job in April, then indicted in October. He is facing insurance fraud and official misconduct criminal charges. He was arraigned in Bergen County Superior Court Dec. 13, where the suspended police chief pleaded not guilty.

According to Toscano, the judge's decision was "totally expected."

"It is impossible to get a fair disciplinary trial in Hackensack," wrote Toscano in an e-mail. "There was no way that the retired judge was going to rule against the same entity that hired and paid him."

"Every one of my requests for valid subpoenas was denied without a valid legal basis in the Riotto matter," added Toscano, referring to his refused requests that Murphy issue subpoenas for Zisa, Capt. Danilo Garcia, Lt. John Heinemann, and Capt. Tomas Padilla, who is the acting officer in charge of the Hackensack Police Department. "For example, how is the proposed testimony of Zisa, who signed and brought the disciplinary charges against Riotto, irrelevant?"

In his ruling, Murphy reiterated his earlier decision regarding the subpoenas, stating that the potential testimony of the individuals listed "had no probative value."

Despite the heated atmosphere in Hackensack, Philip George, the attorney representing the city in the Riotto matter, believed that Murphy had made a cool, clear decision.

"The decision was appropriate under the proofs," said George. "No matter how much you rave about politics, [Riotto] testified under oath that he took the threat seriously, but he didn't report it. He didn't comply with his own rules and regulations."

Murphy noted in his ruling that once Riotto's record, background information and briefs from the attorneys regarding penalties to be imposed are submitted and reviewed, a complete decision with penalty recommendations will be rendered. Murphy requested that the information be submitted by December 10.

Toscano wrote in an e-mail that the decision against Riotto will be immediately appealed as soon as the final notices of disciplinary action are issued, "no matter what the penalty is."